Doesn't this perspective place us at or near the "center" of the universe? I am not objecting to continued expansion, just the use of the word universe as the be all, end all. Speculation is all we have.
All increments of "Time" and even the concept itself are human creations and thus arbitrary. Einstein used these increments in order to define concept and did so appropriately in context. Plank time becomes a necessary creation when attempting to explain the beginnings of our Universe and the Big Bang but is still nothing more than something we humans use to make sense of the imagined. Any explanation or opinion must be considered little more than a guess when these ideas are discussed and those studying it understand this which is why it is all hypothesis. When someone speaks as if they "Know" they are dismissed out of hand.
Technically we could be anywhere in the universe. We are at the center of our own observations. We can see an equal distant in all directions dependent on light sources positions of course.
To know is to have the knowledge needed to know. Like we know things fall to the ground and so on. I did not create the physics involved they already exist and are process. I know because I understood Einstein and know he made a mistake, however it was ''him'' that taught me this by reviewing his works. There is only really two simple changes needed , change the terminology of time dilation to a timing dilation and bring back Newtons absolute time.
We humans have created the means to observe our Universe to the point of the Cosmic Dark Ages before the first stars. At this point (about 13 and a half billion years ago) our observation optically are abandoned in favor of other radiation sources. We cannot know what exists in the "Non-Observable" universe because we cannot observe it.
That is correct, but we can make assumptions based on what we do know. It seems very unlikely there is no bodies beyond our visual boundary. The existing bodies that are in expansion will eventually end up in the non-observable ''zone''. Then we can say with a certainty that there is bodies in this non-observable ''zone''. I also read somewhere that every now and again we see flashes of light from this non-observable zone which suggests bodies exist in this ''zone''.
I understand how big of thing this is, I am not sure I want it, I would just rather share the idea with scientists and leave them too it. I would not mind seeing my name on Wiki though , I would love to ''exist'' for my children too be proud of me.
I must disagree based on the simple realities of how every explosion is spherical (which means that no matter what we only see out half of the bubble), if we see flashes it is not non-observable now is it?
good point on the non-observable...... The big bang was not a conventional explosion, so I have no way of determining whether it was spherical. I consider a finite observation will always result in spherical, because the distance we can observe is isotropic. Myself personally I do not believe in a big bang, I believe the Universal expansion is because of polarity and the electrodynamics of bodies and fields. However that is a rather lengthy discussion and I would have to discuss my N-field and Q.F.S (quantum field solidity).
I think that might be illegal in some way , it's not about the credit, its just about getting it into the open. I don't think letting somebody else have the credit would be the right thing to do. The paper is still unfinished though. I am not sure I should write the rest, ''destroying'' some of Einsteins thoughts is one thing, but do you think the world will be ready to learn that light and dark does not exist ?
My paper ''destroys'' time dilation, the twin paradox, time travel. Like I said about light and dark, the world is really not ready for it. Want me to prove it in a very simple statement? Outside the building you are in right now, it is neither dark or light outside. Only the objects are visibly dark or visibly light.
Yes lots of laughs indeed, but facts my friend. Look out of your window and tell me what do you see? Do you see visible light objects or visible dark objects?
Here is another section of my paper, I have not final edited this yet. Light and dark explained Let us start our discussion with the clarification of what we call light and what we call darkness in a general manner. It is important we remove ambiguity from the discussion so that we can have an equal understanding of the context we mean. In discussing light and dark , let us not mistake the words for being that of the ebony and ivory keys on a piano. What we are discussing is the electromagnetic radiation emitted from a star or a source such as a flashlight. In discussing darkness we are referring to the lack of light or the absence of light as it is presently defined. One must also understand the difference in the visible spectrum ( can be seen by the eye) and the invisible spectrum ( can not be seen by the eye). The visible spectrum(colour) is visible light that can be seen by the eye, this can be measured to have a constant wave-length for each independent ''colour''. The visible spectrum is measured to be 400nm-700nm , this is the range of light within our range of vision. Shorter or longer wave-lengths of light can not be seen by the human eye although some species of animals such as snakes can see infra red wave-length that extends from 700nm to 1mm. The interference of space on light. Let us now look at the light permeating through space, the space apparently not opposing the permeating light or having any affect on the light. The observation of the light permeating through space by the human eye, being that of the invisible spectrum, no visible spectrum is observed. The space seemingly empty and colourless in appearance as if there is nothing there, but even a school boy knows the space contains electromagnetic radiation of the invisible kind (invisible spectrum). The change of state of space with the light on or off. In the previous chapter we discussed the interference of space on light where we can draw a conclusion that space does not alter the light constant permeating through it . Now let us look at the affects of light on space and the visual appearance of that space with the lights on or the lights off. We have already discussed and know that space is transparent to light and we already know that space does not interfere with the permeating light. With the lights on , humans perceive the space to be light . With the lights off one would perceive that space to be dark. However the physics involved and what we have already discussed about space and interference, one could certainly suggest with an almost certainty that the space remains unaltered in its state and appearance, the appearance of dark and light of that space being an optical illusion. The space remaining transparent with the lights on or off. There is only a state of change of objects appearance in that they either look illuminated or they look dark. Darkness is not a state of space or an absence of, it is a state of matter and natural look when not illuminated with enough intensity and magnitude of electromagnetic radiation to produce visible light. added- not so funny anymore hey.
You certainly do not see dark or light space. The air you can 'see' has not changed in transparency in the ''dark'' or ''light''.
So now you know I can prove all my postulates Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter what the speed of measurement Postulate two: Visible light is dependent to electro-magnetic radiation and substance interaction. Postulate three: Visible light and dark do not exist of free space. Postulate four: Visible darkness is a visual property of an object that is not illuminated. The universe is not as we know it to be..... it is ostensible.
You understand Einstein and yet do not know even how to deal with tensors?????????????? Spend a decade or so learning the language of Physics and that language have nothing to do with English and then get back to us. PS Newtons absolute time indeed as there is no such thing unless you find a way to bring back the concept of the aether. See the Michelson–Morley experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment
I already have.... What is interesting is when people like yourself come into a thread and claim people like myself have provided no proof when the proof is already there. You always avoid commenting or questioning the post provided by the poster. To disprove something you have to disprove, just saying it does not make it so. I have shown and proved the errors of Einstein, my work is 100% accurate and can not be disproved . I know because I have tried to disprove myself , if I can't do it then I know nobody else can. So please feel free to try and disprove my corrections of relativity, I already know you can't and in that find the need to chat gibberish. I have offered several forums this challenge and guess what? They all fail ....
